About your Search

20120925
20121003
STATION
MSNBC 7
MSNBCW 6
CNBC 2
CNN 2
CNNW 2
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 37
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
, because what carney said was dead false. >> sean: it's not just carney, too. >> it's susan rice. >> sean: it's hillary clinton. >> let's go to susan rice. five days after this terrorist attack, she is booked on five national news shows and goes out and uses the exact terminology, spontaneous, not premeditated, not preplanned at all. they were told to go out there by people who must have known the intelligence, therefore using these people, these administration people to deceive and mislead unless they were utterly stupid about what happened. we ought to find out who told ms. rice to go out and say that, who told carney to go out and say that, because we know it was ultimaterly false. it was complete a terrorist attack. >> sean: here's the problem. this president still is blaming this youtube movie trailer that was released in july. he's still blaming them. we have the mother of one of our navy seals killed here, and she's demanding answers, as should the ambassador's family, the other navy seal and the other person. banghazi is a hotbed for terrorist training, pat. this is not brain surg
saying the administration's response was inept and ignorant and susan rice blaming it on a spontaneous protest was inexcusable. >> it's either willful ignorance or abysmal ignorance to think people come to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and heavy weapons pant attack goes on for hours. bill: both sides are complaining. governor romney's team says the white house is still getting its story mixed up. >> reporter: democrats say republicans are politicizing the tragic attack that cost of life of four americans. the republicans say the white house is cover ugging up the details for political reasons. here is axlerod. >> the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. but when you are the responsible party, when you are the administration and you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believed. >> reporter: actually it was several days after the benghazi attack before the white house called it terrorism and that came after the national terrorism chief called it aterror attack. >> i think now based on the recommendations o
is the united nations susan rice. almost two weeks ago she claimed the assault was a spontaneous protest that spun out of control. white house officials admitting it was a coordinated terrorist attack. speaking earlier on fox news, peter king says rice should step down over this. >> the person that was out there. the person that was going to get all the glory, all the morning shows was ambassador rice. to send a clear message to the world and to american people this will not be tolerated, she should resign but also should investigate and find out how high up this went. >> gregg: welcome to a brand-new hour. i'm gregg jarrett. >> heather: i'm heather childers. a new debate rages in washington. what did white house officials know and when did they know it. demand for answers into the shifting accounts coming not just from republicans but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. attack in benghazi that left four americans dead, including chris stevens, ambassador to libya. molly henneberg is live in washington. >> molly: the white house and state department are defending ambassador susan ric
to the united nations susan rice went on the talk shows it was a chest - orchesterated line. within 24 hours they knew it was a terrorist attack and how did they know that? they have to classify it as a terrorist attack to get the right people in action to go in investigate. that had happened. >> brian: there is a couple of problems with it 24 hours after the attacks we knew, there was intelligence knew. whether ambassador rice or president obama knew. i would have to assume they did know. they went everywhere saying we had no idea and blamed the movie. hilary clinton blamed the movie three times in the after math and jay carny blay amed the movie and president obama in the un podium mentioned the mouvy and not being -- being part of the reason for the killings. charles has a summary. let's listen to them. >> why did they deceive? it is obvious. the attack tock place five days after the democrats had spent ape week in charlotte spiking the football on osama and the only foreign policy achievement of four years they repeated it over and over. and great triumph and then al-qaida sacks the emba
.s. government response has frankly been confusing. u.n. ambassador susan rice has said the attacks were not preplanned. secretary clinton said she had absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al qaeda hit list as a target. the state department said u.s. officials at that post never passed along the warning from the libyan government on militias and security in benghazi. now the administration appears to be backtracking a little bit, at least on the assertion about whether the attack was preplanned or not. but the take-away right now from the administration, when you take a step back and look at this information and the conflicts in the information, appears to be this. the americans on the ground failed to tell washington about the risks, so it isn't the state department's fault that they didn't stop it. well, why so much confusion? chris coons is on the senate foreign relations committee, he has been briefed on the situation. and first, sir, thank you very much for taking the time. let me start and ask you, since i k
it was a terror attack 24 hours after the incident. now some senators are demanding ambassador susan rice say why, she said it wasn't. what did the white house know and when did it know it? >>> plus, a new survey from ceos, does the pessimism spell trouble for president obama and maybe the rest of us also? president obama and mitt romney meanwhile battling it out in the swing state of ohio. john harwood joins us now with all the details. good evening, john. >> good evening, larry. you know, in the wake of that 47% video last week, mitt romney's got a new message and that's to tell middle class people as well as the poor that he cares about them. he did it on the stump in ohio today, he also did it in an interview with our nbc colleague ron allen just a few minutes ago. here's mitt romney. >> i served as a pastor of a congregation with people of all different backgrounds and economic circumstances that i care very deeply about the american people and people of different socioeconomic circumstances. and i think throughout this campaign, as well, we've talked about my record in massachusetts. don't
are defending ambassador susan rice. a spokesman for barack obama says she has done extraordinary work for the american people. also democratic senator john kerry called rice, quote a remarkable public servant and state department put out a statement defending rice's comments to those sunday shows. the statement said, quote, at every turn, ambassador rice said she was providing the best information and best assessment that the administration had at the time. based on what was provided to ambassador rice and other senator senior intelligence committee but they knew one day of the assault that it was a coordinated terror attack likely tied to al-qaeda. congressman king wants to know why ambassador rice went on tv five days after the attack and said otherwise. >> the entire administration, miss informed the world and she was our representative to the world explaining what happened. virtually everything she said was wrong and the administration is trying to cover it by saying she was given the best information available at the time. >> molly: a spokesperson for james clapper says assessmen
attack and yet for nine days, susan rice and others went out and said this was spontaneous mob violence related to. >>tube clip. we know that's not true. why was susan rice out on the sunday shows making those statements and trying to cover up what actually happened. that's the real question to look at here. >> jennifer: right. it seems like you're talking about two different obviously incidents. one is the egyptian embassy and the one is the libyan compound. there were two different things but the question i think is -- on everybody's mind is it is always difficult when you have an international incident to speak too soon. that probably could be said of the administration as well as of governor romney before he had gathered all of the facts. i guess the question that many people have is it proper to be criticizing an administration in the middle of a crisis? >> well, look, we're in the middle of a presidential campaign and the foreign policy is something that's critical to the campaign and so it is going to be d
of u.n. ambassador susan rice because of her handling of the u.s. consulate attack in benghazi. u.s. intelligence is saying there is evidence that the attack was initially planned. initially, the administration had maintained they believed the attacks in libya were spontaneous reaction to the offensive video that rocked the middle east and beyond. could the direct sort of politicizing of the benghazi attack snowball into a full-blown october surprise for the president? what do you think? does the changing discourse about what happened in benghazi ultimately cause harm to the president? >> the thing about an october surprise is it usually has to reinforce some fundamental weakness or arguments from taking place with the president. if you think about the bin laden tape at the end of the 2004 campaign with bush and kerry, bush had been running on this fear and strength and all these issues getting the country animated on this. by the time the surprise happened, it reinforced what the people already believed. the thing that the president and this is why the bin laden assassination sor
, but they sent out susan rice, hillary clinton, cents out jay carney, everybody top down including the president up until yesterday's blaming something that they know is factually inaccurate. they said that has nothing to do with america, an outright lie, to not only the american people, but the family that lost loved ones. >> yep. the one thing they've decided can't be discussed for the next six weeks is his performance in office. the blame campaign throughout four years has showed you that they're allergic to accountability particularly, but generally when you're allergic to accountability it leads to cover-ups. i've proven they've participated in cover-ups. there's an electronic bonfire in this administration, destroying records. they're on aol for their sleazy programs, the solyndra program and so on. they have a privately-owned computer service for the white house to conduct discussions about confidential troubling u.n. programs that bother a lot of people that they might want to know about this. >> sean: how do you know this? >> from the freedom of information act, investigators, and inter
rice to resign, does the president have confidence in susan rice? >> absolutely. >> what about the broader point here, security is so bad in benghazi, that the fbi can't even go in and investigate. what about the fact that there are talk of military options to find ambassador steven's killers? what is america doing to work its will to change the trajectory in libya? >> well obviously i'm not going to speak for the fbi. but i think the key thing here, we live in a dangerous world with threats out there. and we're going to make sure that the appropriate steps are taken to enhance security, make sure our personnel and ambassadors are secure. >> is there a military option for the united states to lead the way in libya, to track down his killers? >> i'm not going to speak to that but the president was very clear the day after this event, this tragedy, that we are going to make sure that these killers are brought to justice. >> was it inappropriate for him to go to a fundraiser the day after this attack, in retrospect knowing it was a terrorist attack? inappropriate for him to engage
and organized terrorist attack. administration officials, including ambassador susan rice, stated that benghazi was a demonstration prompted by the video clip that spun out of crock. fox news, first to report, there was no ongoing demonstration at the consulate when the attack unfolded. the rso who worked for the state department in the middle east tells fox that the u.s. consulate in benghazi had to be classified as a, quote, "critical threat, terrorism, or civil unrest posting," and what fall follows the classification are specific security requirements including reenforced windows and doors. grading is only acceptable for the ambassador residents and not where official business is done. as for the perimeter security, walls have to be three meters in height and buildings set back 100 feet. the enhanced security is designedded to create an hour of safety or golden hour when class fied documents can be burned and emergency evacuation called in. we have asked the state department tonight whether the consulate met the security requirements, and if not, if approved, the state department spokeswoma
and organized. peter king of new york called on susan rice to resign as u.s. ambassador to the united nations after she initially claimed the attack on the consulate was part of the spontaneous protest after an anti-islamic video. yesterday paul ryan and john mccain slammed the administration's handling of the deadly attack. >> the response was slow, confused, inconsistent. they first said it was a youtube video and a spontaneous mob. we now know it was a planned terrorist attack if this was one tragic incident that would be a tragedy in itself. the problem is it's part of a bigger picture that the obama foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes on tv screens. >> i think it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey that al qaeda is on the wane, everything is fine in the middle east. >> you think it's political? >> how else could you trot out our u.n. ambassador to say this was a spon ttaneous demonstrati? >> maybe they thought that at the time? >> on "meet the press" david plouffe was asked by david gregory if politics had anything to do with the administrat
insulting to muslims they knew it was a tres attack. kirsten, was there a coverup? why would they send susan rice so many days later on the talk shows to claim it's spontaneous. >> that's the question. it does appear a coverup and i have been-- judy has been trying to track down exactly what happened and many reporters asking questions and you're told she was operating under the best information she had and clear she was couching is as the latest information a, but she was specific, that's the problem it was just contrary to common sense and to even compare it to what happened in cairo, to say the movie called it. the same thing, that terroris terrorists-- protesters don't carry rpg's anded media has a lack of curiosity about this and should be holding their feet to the fire. >> there's also another element. the 24/7 news cycle, the desire to get something out into the public arena quickly often brings mistakes like this. and i think of colin powell and the demonstration at the u.n. supposedly wmd's in iraq and then he went on all the sunday talk shows. he was talking about what he thought a
, representative peter king is calling for the resignation of u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice for what he says was misleading comments about the attacks in libya. yes, this issue has become political, but it is more than that because even if u.s. intelligence didn't know the specific details of an impending attack, here's what they and we do know. three days before the attack, senior u.s. embassy officials were warned by the libyan militia connected to the government, they couldn't secure benghazi. the british ambassador was attacked in june and of course, the attack happened on september 11th and once again, once the attack happened, u.s. intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was linked to al-qaeda. also, "the daily beast" eli lake reports they even knew the location of at least one of the attackers. eli is with me tonight on what u.s. intelligence knew in the immediate aftermath. also with us is jeff porter, an adviser on political and security risks and jeffrey cousins. great to see you. and eli, let me start with you. you have had so much of the first reporting on this and now, yo
is calling on the u.n. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice, to resign for initially calling the attack, quote, spontaneous and not premeditated. >> she could have said it's uncertain as to exactly how it was done, it's unsure how it was done. but to rule out terrorism saying it was not a terrorist, that was wrong. she misled the people, either if it was unintentionally or done out of ignorance. in either case, she would do the right thing and step down and resign. >> yesterday the spokesman for the national intelligence director issued a statement saying they, "revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out extremists." brent colburn is the national communications director for the obama campaign. brent, good saturday to you. >> thanks for having me, craig. >> "the new york times" today has a piece. the piece is called "shifting reports on libya killings may cost obama." how concerned are you at this point about the way the white house has explained the attack on the embassy? >> sure. we
to secretary clinton, to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice specifically talking about what they believe were misstatements by the administration or a lack of being, i guess, savvy enough to suspect a terrorist attack, which some republican members like john mccain, like kelly ayotte have been saying was more likely than a spontaneous mob reaction. so there is a bit of the politics, but there is something that steps away from that and they're pushing for answers. they're out of town and don't come back until november. they ask for any information on an interim basis and expect to see hearings, further congressional investigations because of their oversight responsibilities when they do get back in november. it's an issue that is really bringing people it together in one sense, but it's also a very hot political issue when it comes to the level of security for our ambassadors and those hot parts of the world where there's been so much going on. so expect to see a whole lot more of this, chris. >> what we hear from the white house and from officials is that basically you don't want to jump conc
for another briefing. of course, this is all in the face of the likes of susan rice and jay carney who insist on clinging bitterly to their initial lies about what exactly happened there. >> brian: i wonder where this is going to go because there are so many questions still and no one is waiting for the administration anymore. you got a bunch of news outlets who are ticked off about what seem to be lied to. >> steve: something else, we played an hour ago this jaw dropper from one of the president's spokes people, stephanie cutter on the diane reams show yesterday. we're going to have you listen to it, along with everybody else and then commentary. >> that's the other thing that you find most often with women. they're not really concerned about what happened over the last four years. they really want to know what's going to happen in the next four years. >> steve: oh, really? looking forward, women are not concerned with what happened in the last four years with all those jobs lost and the economy in the dumper. they're more concerned about looking forward. you believe that? >> well, you know
to happen with that, with susan rice? do you think she could potentially lose her job or no? >> i don't think she'll lose her job, but i don't think we'll be seeing her much in the upcoming months. >> molly, best and worst? >> i'll give best week to todd akin, the republican senate candidate out in missouri. the deadline passed this week for him to withdraw from the race. he was under heavy, heavy pressure from so many republicans to get out. they say they couldn't possibly win. he stuck it out, he knew they'd come around and they'd give him their money and their support when they didn't have a choice, and sure enough, that's exactly what's happening. you have a lot of republicans magically changing their mind now that they can't get him out of there. and for worst week, i'll have to go with mitt romney. this is the week that we really saw this narrative solidify that he is just, he's down and out. and when i was with him in ohio, i was looking for signs that he's doing something to turn it around. that he knows what he wants to do to get out of it, and i'm just not seeing those signs
calling for u.n. ambassador susan rice to resign when they said the administration lied about who was behind the attacks in benghazi, libya, senator john kerry called for rice to stay on. the republican party has severed ties with a virginia based consulting group it has paid $3 million to this year alone. the group is being investigated for voter fraud in nine counties in florida. right now, my story of the week. the republican bubble trap. if you follow politics, you've probably noticed that polling of the presidential election has swung quite decidedly in the president's favor over the last couple of weeks. the real clear politics polling average now has obama up 4.1 points over mitt romney in national poles. nate silver's prediction model put barack obama's odds of winning the election above 80% for the first time ever. swing state polling just this week seems to confirm the trend. a new quinnipiac "new york times" cbs poll shows surprisingly strong leads for the president. the galup tracking poll shows obama up six points. it's pretty hard to survey the polling data and not c
convention, and susan rice is somebody who is often mentioned. now, this recent flap over libya and what the united states said or did not say about the situation there might have damaged her prospects a little bit. we'll have to watch that one, on the romney side robert zoellick, former world bank president and richard haass, president of the council of foreign relations mention there had and treasury secretary we talked about some of the names for the obama cabinet starting with the obama side, jack lew, former white house chief of staff, he's most easily confirmed here. erskine bowles is somebody a lot of liberals are worried about in washington, they think maybe if obama picks bowles for secretary of the treasury that signals he's willing to do a deal that he was not willing to do in his first term. lael brainard, undersecretary of treasury for international affairs, recently dispatched to china. sheryl sandberg is an interesting one. i want to come back to her. let's do the romney cabinet picks and we'll come back to sheryl sandberg, julia had a great interview with her. glenn hubba
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)